Let’s leave aside debate over the once and future shutdown, for which I hold both parties responsible (and award the mainstream media yet another badge of shame for its shamelessly partisan misreporting on fellow liberal elitists).
New Jersey will begin recognizing same-sex marriages on Oct. 21 pursuant to a superior court order; an appeal of that order is slated to be heard by the N.J. Supreme Court in January 2014. Also, the N.J. state legislature has until Jan. 14 to override Gov. Chris Christie’s 2012 veto of a same-sex marriage bill.
“The state’s statutory scheme effectively denies committed same-sex partners in New Jersey the ability to receive federal benefits not afforded to married partners,” said the state’s Supreme Court in denying Christie’s request to stay marriage equality until his appeal is heard.
Christie further showed himself unequipped for 21st century leadership by declaring he would tell a hypothetical gay child, “Dad believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Update 1: On Oct. 21, the Christie administration withdraw its appeal of the ruling requiring marriage equality and announced: “Although the Governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law. The Governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.”
This is a nod to reality (he wasn’t going to win in the NJ Supreme Court come January), but also a political move that tries to play it both ways. That is, Christie isn’t standing in the courthouse door pledging marriage inequality forever, as Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli would likely do (see below).
Update 2: The National Organization for Marriage attacks and threatens “[Christie’s] surrender on marriage effectively surrenders any chance he might have had to secure the GOP nomination for president.” We’ll see.
Meanwhile, in Virginia, the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate, anti-gay social conservative Ken Cuccinelli, is trailing Democratic crony capitalist hack Terry McAuliffe. Will Cucc’s loss be a lesson to the GOP? Don’t count on it. Anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher is already bloviating that Cuccinelli is losing because he’s not socially conservative enough.
Adding to the confusion in Virginia, where there is a fine Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate, Robert Sarvis, is the increasingly muddled reporting that describes Cucc as having “staked out strong libertarian positions.” As when he was supporting the state’s sodomy law? Of course, Cuccinelli is encouraging this laugh line by describing himself as “the most pro-liberty elected statewide official in my lifetime,” showing that this farce has become a travesty.
More. George Will in support of Robert Sarvis, Virginia’s Libertarian alternative. He quotes a Sarvis ad in which the candidate makes it clear:
“Like you, I can’t vote for Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow-minded social agenda. I want a Virginia that’s open-minded and welcoming to all. And like you, I don’t want Terry McAuliffe’s cronyism either, where government picks winners and losers. Join me, and together we can build a Virginia that’s open-minded and open for business.”
That would be nice.
Furthermore. This will be the meme: Tea Party Leader: Ultraconservative Ken Cuccinelli Is Not Conservative Enough. And to be fair, progressive activists have said the same thing (in reverse, that is) when they nominate leftwingers who go down to defeat.
32 Comments for “Stuck in Reverse”
posted by Doug on
You need to get out of your Faux News bubble Stephen. There is only 1 party responsible for the government shutdown and that is the Republican Party. Speaker Boehner changed the House rules on the eve of the shutdown to assure the shutdown happened.
Cuccinelli, ‘the most pro-liberty elected statewide official in my lifetime’, also supports vaginal probes for women seeking a legal abortion. Using Cuccinelli and ‘pro-liberty’ in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
posted by Mike in Houston on
For someone to say “leave aside” something, then launch into yet another randian diatribe before getting to the point of the post – namely that the GOP is stuck on stupid and clinging to reactionary nilhism – well, it’s getting damn tiresome.
You make valid points about the GOP’s slide into irrelevancy, but can’t help slipping into tired tropes.
posted by Houndentenor on
When I hear a die hard Republican claim that it’s both sides, I hear that as their admission that they know as well as I do that a group of GOP House members demanded a bill that they knew the Senate wouldn’t go for in order to shut down the government. they sent a letter saying exactly that to Boehner just before all this started. To say it’s both sides is absurd. Some people just can’t admit out loud that they were wrong. I get that. But only the complete loonies are blaming the whole thing in the Democrats, which is quite something considering the bubble that most conservatives live in these days.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, there’s that word again: “Randian.” If you’re going to keep using it, pray tell us what you mean by it.
If you actually read Mr. Miller’s post, exactly what did he say in it that qualified as “Randian?”
I suppose that, like most people not terribly familiar with Ayn Rand’s works, you are using “Randian” as a synonym for “mean” or “heartless.” Well, what did Mr. Miller say, in this post, that was heartless or mean?
And I know…I know. You’re practically an expert on all things “Randian” because in high school you made it halfway through Atlas Shugged.
posted by Lori Heine on
The system stuck my last comment below Houndentenor’s, but it was a response to Mike in Houston.
posted by Houndentenor on
I use Randian too sometimes. No, I never made it through Atlas Shrugged (and can’t imagine how anyone does), but I’ve read enough interviews with her and read enough Objectivist writings to have some idea of what she was about and I find it repugnant. Perhaps a little of that is fine but I would not want to live in the dystopian nightmare that her followers think of as utopia. (And spare me the false choice between her world view and Marx’s. There’s a whole universe between the two and somewhere in there is a decent, ethical, compassionate world where people are still free.)
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t need convincing that putting Ayn Rand’s philosophy into by-the-letter practice is a bad idea. As a Christian, I find her views on many matters repugnant. As she never described herself as a libertarian — in fact repudiated us — calling herself an “anarch0-capitalist,” I refuse pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey name-games attempting to brand me with Rand’s ideas.
As per above, I am not a Randian, and disagree with many of her ideas, you can rest assured I’ll give you no false choice between her ideas (which would lead inevitably back to Marxism) and Marxism itself.
I just don’t get Mike in Houston’s charge that Stephen Miller is “Randian” in this post. Nor would it answer my question to point to some other post of Mr. Miller’s. Why are the ideas the author of this post expresses in this one, particularly, “Randian?”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Regarding the ‘shutdown’ – 30 Rock (During one of its — rare IMHO — truly funny and smart moments) had a bit between the ‘Ms Lemon’ and Baldwin character about affordable health care.
Basically, Baldwin’s character reply is that affordable health care is a bad idea because people that cannot afford health care, are not really suppose to live past a certain age.
This is pretty much the argument that a faction within the GOP was making. The President dusted off a centrist idea (Heritage foundation approved not too long ago) for making health care more affordable and the right-wing screamed and screamed about death panels and socialism.
What alternative solution did they have for the problem? None. To the millions of Americans that would not have health insurance or had coverage that was not worth the paper it was printed on, the great GOP solution was pretty much what Baldwin character says.
Anyways, that’s what I have to say on the shutdown….
Onto more talk about a certain lady named Ayn Rand.
I would not claim to be an expert — frankly an expert on Rand would sort of be like an expert in Klingon (and I say that as a Star Trek fan).
However, what Ayn Rand believed and the arguments that she made are pretty simple to understand — agree or disagree with them without being an ‘expert’.
Part of what made her tick is somewhat understandable. She had grown up in a small Russian elite, which was part of an even smaller group of Jewish families actually given some freedom of movement. Then the Soviets came and took it all away.
Of all of the people that could have taken over Russia — other then the czars and the Orthodox Church — the Soviets were the meanest of the bunch.
So, the fact that she was very, very “anti-Communist” in her beliefs is not too surprising — in light of her childhood. The fact that she was also a hardcore atheist is also somewhat understandable for similar reasons.
Ayn Rand did not classify herself as “libertarian”, but her Objectivist philosophy is — for all practical purposes — the same as the libertarian philosophy (when we are talking about the libertarian right).
She opposed the idea of government providing public services, welfare aid or protecting public health or safety.
In her mind, strictly voluntary charity could be tolerated, but nothing else.
This played very well with both the libertarian-right as well as the GOP New Right. Although, later on in her life she did actually accept federal benefits/welfare to stay alive….
Her atheism — very much a part of her philosophy — is often ignored by the GOP New Right — and the Tea Party folk.
What Rand said about human relations or social issues is a bit less clear. Their has been quite a bit written about her reactionary attitudes about sex/gender roles and homosexuality (for example).
The only thing that she said publicly about homosexuality was (once or two at a college Q&A) that she felt that it was immoral and disgusting, but that it should not be a crime.
It is hard to say if she should supported the libertarian party perspective on gay rights or not, although the The modern day Objectivist groups do.
About the only thing she said policy wise — that might conflict with the standard doctrine of the libertarian right (reflected in the libertarian party) was her hawkish foreign policy.
To make a long story short (too late?), “Randian” is probably used to refer to someone who takes a cruel, ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘no one really matters but me’.
That may apply — in terms of the most recent posts — concerning affordable health care or efforts to eliminate or drastically cut the federal food support program.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I use the term “Randian nonsense” in the sense that Stephen (like some other folks in the GOP) tend to go all “Galt” when it comes to their characterizations, to whit:
Democratic Centralism
“Progressive” Total Statists
(and in this post) Liberal Elitists
It’s not debate or argument, just cheap name calling… and betrays a real lack of intellectual heft.
Of course, I could have equally used the term “Glibertarian” instead of Randian — the difference being that one ignores the consequences of these policies, while the other seems to relish in them.
posted by Jared123 on
Steve is clearly having a bit of fun with “over the top” language, but he also clearly disagrees with the liberal commenters in that he sees government over-reach as unworkable and ultimately dangerous to individual rights. To call him out on name-calling and then to call him a “Randian” is quite pot calling the kettle black (is someone about to call me a racist for that?).
Steve has noted his strong belief in individual religious conscience — quite different from Randian atheism.
As for being critical of the administration’s welfare expansion — there are legitimate reasons to question extending welfare and food stamps (and disability benefits to the nondisabled) to such a large percentage of the population, and at a level very much above the poverty line. Including: the disincentive to take a job that isn’t considered optimal (but would otherwise be accepted), funded by taking tax dollars from those who are working at jobs they’d rather not be working at. That is, it is not automatically a demonstration of “meanness” or wanting children to starve. At some point we get so beyond a safety net that the programs become irrational. You can disagree at where that point is, but there is a point, otherwise the government should provide us all with our weekly groceries, until the country collapses like Greece.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ll forgive the complete nonsense of the first paragraph because in the rest of this you seem to be getting it.
The people in New Jersey want their gay friends, family and neighbors to be able to marry. The legislature does too. The courts have ruled multiple times that it was unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to marry. The only thing holding this up is Chris Christie. So much for the hope that moderate Republicans will be our allies. Only once they have retired and won’t be running for office again. Christie is an anti-gay bigot and while I think he did a good job following Hurricane Sandy and demonstrated administrative competence in a difficult time, I can’t vote for a bigot. I wouldn’t vote for someone who was a bigot against minorities or women either. I don’t know why being an anti-gay bigot is still acceptable in 2013. I’m sick of people making excuses for him. He’s pandering to the religious right because he wants to run for president (which is hilarious in and of itself). He’s certainly not acting in the interest of the people who elected him.
As for Cuccinelli and McAuliffe. What a repugnant choice. It’s the kind of election for which I think we should have an option “none of the above” which would require both candidates to submit a new candidate in a new election if that ballot line received the most votes. I think that would be true in this case. I guess I would vote for the Democrat because to me the openly hostile anti-gay ticket is too repugnant to even consider. As for Republicans acting like Libertarians when they are campaigning, I can’t believe anyone is idiot enough to fall for that. Except for every Republican I know who isn’t a social conservative who thinks Republicans will be for cutting spending and smaller government, which none of them ever do anything about once they are elected. Republicans have gotten very good at borrowing Libertarian talking points. It’s the most bizarre political spectacle of my lifetime, and that’s saying something. People actually buy it. How, I don’t know.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Washington Blade reported this week that Ted Olson contributed $1,000 to Cuccinelli’s campaign in September. I checked his campaign contributions for this year and last, and discovered that Olsen also contributed $1,000 each year to Ted Cruz.
If Ted Olson, of all people, is contributing to the campaigns of men like this, what hope is there that the Republican Party will ever change? If I were in a position to ask him, I’d ask “What the hell were you thinking, anyway?”
posted by Houndentenor on
This week the Houston Chronicle retracted (sort of) its endorsement of Ted Cruz in last year’s election. They had endorsed his primary opponent Lt Gov David Dewhurst earlier, but they endorsed Cruz in the general election. What is bizarre in the op-ed is that there is nothing Cruz has said or done since elected that is in any way out of character with what he said in the debates and in interviews last year as he was running for this Senate Seat. His words and actions shouldn’t be at all surprising to anyone following news reports in Texas. So how is it that the editorial board of a major Texas newspaper is surprised that Cruz is doing what he told voters he would do if elected? This is the bubble that business/country-club Republicans live in. Sure he said those things, but he didn’t really mean them. After all, their type of Republican has been making empty promises to the religious right and the libertarian wing of the party for decades. I wonder what it’s going to take for Republicans to wake up from the denial of what the party is today. Cuccinelli and Cruz aren’t an aberration. They represent the base of the party and what used to be the conservative mainstream (which conservatives now mistake for the “middle”) is scared shitless of being challenged by one of these know-nothings in their next primary. What is it going to take for people to realize who these people are and what they are willing to do to the country if everyone else doesn’t cave into their every childish ill-conceived demand? What? And when?
posted by JohnInCA on
To be fair, a politician (any politician) actually doing what they say they’re going to do is pretty surprising.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. Good point. I can see why they might have been surprised that he really meant what he said, but I think mainly it’s a matter of country club Republicans thinking they can manage and control the Tea Partiers and religious right and being shocked that those two groups are not going to be told to sit down and shut up while the “leaders” decide how things will be.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Christie further showed himself unequipped for 21st century leadership by declaring he would tell a hypothetical gay child, “Dad believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”
I don’t have a problem with a father telling his child, as a private, personal matter, that he believes this, that or the other about morality, particularly when the father is passing along the moral teachings of his church.
However, I DO have a problem, and a large one, with a politician insists that our civil laws reflect his private, personal beliefs about morality. And that is where Christie, along with a lot of other politicians, has crossed over the line.
Chris Christie is the sole reason why marriage equality has not been a fact on the ground in New Jersey for some time. And he has made it very clear, over and over again, that his reasons for blocking marriage equality are not objective reasons, but the result of his private, personal views of morality.
posted by Jorge on
Christie further showed himself unequipped for 21st century leadership by declaring he would tell a hypothetical gay child, “Dad believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Interfering with parental instruction doesn’t sound very libertarian.
However, I DO have a problem, and a large one, with a politician insists that our civil laws reflect his private, personal beliefs about morality. And that is where Christie, along with a lot of other politicians, has crossed over the line.
There are ultra-conservative Muslims in the Middle East who think this way.
I do not. Chris Christie was elected by a popular majority in trust that he would represent and strive toward in his wisdom the best interests of the majority. Whatever that happens to be. That is called leadership. “Because the 50% who said vote No also deserve my representation.” If you not like it, vote him out, but do not pretend that you are not trying to impose your own private morality on the rest of the country.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Glad to see that you agree with the folks that think that basic civil rights are subject to popular vote.
posted by Jorge on
Getting a pat on the head by a dumb bureaucrat is not a basic civil right, and I find the comparison extremely insulting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There are ultra-conservative Muslims in the Middle East who think this way.
And there are plenty of conservative Christians in the United States who think this way, too.
However, the commonly held belief of religious conservatives of all faiths that “My will is God’s will …” doesn’t mean that it is, despite what they think, and the more critical issue, for our constitutional democracy is that the common good, not religious faith, is the legitimate foundation for our laws.
Chris Christie was elected by a popular majority in trust that he would represent and strive toward in his wisdom the best interests of the majority. Whatever that happens to be. That is called leadership. “Because the 50% who said vote No also deserve my representation.”
Huh?
Chris Christie is imposing “his wisdom” — read his Catholic religious views — on a majority that doesn’t seem to think that Chris Christie’s “wisdom” on this issue is very wise.
posted by Jorge on
We’ll see how big you talk after Christie wins 2016 carrying New Jersey.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
We’ll see how big you talk after Christie wins 2016 carrying New Jersey.
I don’t have any doubt that Chistie will be reelected, and by a large margin. That’s a given, as far as I am concerned.
Christie is a popular governor and marriage equality (that “pat on the head by a dumb bureaucrat”, as you put it) is always at, or very near to, the bottom of the list of importance in issues polling.
Governor Christie’s reelection will not be an endorsement of his wrongheadedness on marriage equality. The polls now showing 60% support for marriage equality will remain unchanged after his election, if support doesn’t rise over time after marriage equality becomes a fact in New Jersey next week, as it has in other states. His reelection will simply be further evidence, if any is needed, that marriage equality is not an important issue for pro-equality straights.
Straight allies are important to our struggle, but we can’t count on them to help remove anti-equality politicians. For G-d’s sake, even the leading proponent of marriage equality in conservative circles supports virulently anti-equality politicians like Cuccinelli and Cruz. It is just a fact of life.
What I find interesting about Governor Christie’s “my kid” statement is that it makes it clear that Governor Christie is not playing the politicians’ pandering game on this issue in order to increase his chances of getting the Republican Party’s nod for President, as most of us seemed to think. Even the most reprehensible political panderer would not lie to his own child.
Have no doubt about it: Governor Christie, like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum, is a hard-core social conservative.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, first of all, I was talking about the presidential election.
Second of all, your concession that he will win re-election as governor defeats your entire argument. Not because his re-election will be an endorsement of his position on marriage equality, but because it is an endorsement of the entire package. As long as he leads in a way that is principled, fair, and looks out of the best interests of each of his constituents taken together, then those traits will make up for the ignominy of taking a few stands most people disagree with. And the ground won’t shift beneath his feet fast enough to change that.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As long as he leads in a way that is principled, fair, and looks out of the best interests of each of his constituents taken together, then those traits will make up for the ignominy of taking a few stands most people disagree with. And the ground won’t shift beneath his feet fast enough to change that.
Which is to say nothing more than I’ve said, assuming that “principled, fair and looks out of the best interests of each of his [straight] constituent” equates with his popularity. It might or might not. But you are certainly dead right that pro-equality straights are not going to elevate equality off the bottom of the issues pile “fast enough to change that”.
But I would point out to you that the Supreme Court of New Jersey is about to give Governor Christie a political gift, wrapped in ribbon. By mandating marriage equality next year, as it is almost certain to do after last week’s unanimous refusal to stay marriage equality, the Supreme Court of New Jersey is going to take marriage equality off Governor Christie’s table.
When that happens, Governor Christie can align himself with the anti-equality movement to his heart’s content without any political cost, because his opposition will have no practical effect in New Jersey.
Having the issue off the table will almost certainly add a point or two to his 2014 tally, allowing him bragging rights about his reelection margin while scoring points on anti-equality by talking up “activist judges are thwarting the will of the people”.
Hell, if he starts to sound enough like Ted Cruz, he might even get a campaign contribution from Ted Olson.
I agree with Houdentenor and others, though. Governor Christie isn’t likely to win the Republican nomination.
Not that I wouldn’t welcome it, though. I’d love to see the social conservative morons like Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher faced with a general election choice between Christie and Clinton in 2016. All that popping you’ll hear will be the sound of heads exploding all over Jesusland.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL
Christie is going nowhere in 2016. He’s everything people in the south hate about “yankees”. He might do well in NH but he’s going to do no better than Giuliani from SC on. He has no hope of getting the nomination.
posted by Doug on
Winning an election does not necessarily prove anything. As I recall Hitler was elected too. George Bush was re elected and tried to privatize Social Security and got his head handed to him.
posted by inahandbasket on
Jorge October 19, 2013 at 5:39 pm:
“Okay, first of all, I was talking about the presidential election.”
Christie’s going to be elected president in 2016? You mean POTUS? Thanks for the biggest laugh of the thread. Christie is unable to be nominated, much less elected, with the current clown car full of crazies in the GOP. You need to put down whatever hallucinogen you’re taking and read something outside of whatever fantasy novella that has captured your fertile imagination.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
New Jersey is playing out exactly as predicted: Governor Christie is acceding to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion refusing Governor Christie’s request for a stay, an opinion which left no doubt about how the Court would rule in January, while continued to hold the high ground among anti-equality conservatives by complaining about “activist judges” imposing their will on the people.
The Christie administration’s statement this morning withdrawing its appeal of the lower court decision:
Governor Christie might take some heat for not fighting to the last ditch, spending as much of the state’s money fostering anti-equality as possible, but my guess is that the move positions him well for deploying the latest “softer, kinder” Republican messaging while holding true to anti-equality principles.
posted by Don on
Wow. Thank you, Stephen, for linking to Maggie’s column. It shifted me on Cuccinelli a bit. Up until today I thought he was somewhere to the right of Torquemada. I had to read it twice to make sure you said “he’s not socially conservative enough” and you did say exactly that. I just couldn’t imagine what that might look like. If Ken is too moderate socially, then who would she elect?
I get her point empirically. He’s softening on pro-life and that’s not okay for her and a lot of people. But Cuccinelli is known as the most socially-conservative Republican pol in America (whether that’s accurate or not, I can’t say – just a clear impression).
He is the only one getting up and saying and doing so-con things that no one else would touch in elective office. He’s actually trying to enact the AFA’s policy agenda. And he’s not “good enough.” Whoah. I would have to think Brian Fisher, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson would be squishes, too.
I don’t see a way around this until legislating moral choices is taken out of the public sphere. Social conservatives usually then cry “so murder should be legal!” but it doesn’t pass the smell test for harm of others. Prostitution, drug use, and abortion are the gray areas. Not necessarily a victimless crime. I can see debate around those. But so much of their agenda is to impose a theocracy for the sole purpose of forcing others to act as they believe.
Until we let that go, we’re going to waste a lot of time and money.
posted by Clayton on
“But so much of their agenda is to impose a theocracy for the sole purpose of forcing others to act as they believe. Until we let that go, we’re going to waste a lot of time and money. ”
If that’s the case, I hope NOM and the AFA don’t let go of their agenda for a long, long time.
Every dollar donated to those two organizations–which are both on the losing side–is a dollar that can’t be donated elsewhere.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The National Organization for Marriage attacks and threatens “[Christie’s] surrender on marriage effectively surrenders any chance he might have had to secure the GOP nomination for president.” We’ll see.
If I were Christie, I wouldn’t worry about it.
Christie has good enough anti-equality history to have credibility within the Republican Party.
He might make it through the primary process, or he might not. My guess is not. But people with a lot better political smarts than I have think he has a path, if a few things fall into place.
In any event, Christie did not lose Brian Brown, Tony Perkins, Peter Sprigg, Sandy Rios, Matt Barber or Bryan Fischer over his decision to drop the appeal. He never had them and he had no hope of getting them.
Even if he had fought to the last legal ditch, he never had a snowball’s chance in hell, if that much, of winning over the “Values Voters” gang. To win them over, Christie would have to hate, and however strongly he may believe in his anti-equality positions, Christie is not a hater.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. This will be the meme: Tea Party Leader: Ultraconservative Ken Cuccinelli Is Not Conservative Enough. And to be fair, progressive activists have said the same thing (in reverse, that is) when they nominate leftwingers who go down to defeat.
Democrats have had their own experience with getting detached from the inherent good sense and political moderation of the American people, and spent time in the political wilderness between the Kennedy/Johnson years and the Clinton/Obama years finding the way back.
The tendency of political parties to be taken over by factions holding views that are too extreme for the American people is nothing new. Our political history is rife with examples. Political parties go off the rails all the time, getting out of touch with the American people, but coming back when the party controls its extreme edges and moves back toward the center.
It is painfully obvious that the Republican Party has gone over the edge, and is in danger of losing touch with the American political center. When a political party is faced with 67% unfavorable rating from independents, 72% from self-identified “moderates”, 65% from voters over 65, 63% from all adults, and a favorable rating only from within its own ranks, it is in trouble with the American people, and there is no getting around it.
People don’t like where the Republicans are right now, and people will vote accordingly if the party doesn’t change. It will change, though, and will come back, in time.